[ABANDONED] Freedom to Keep and Bear Arms Act

[Molsonian Republics]

General Assembly
Gun Control
Relax Laws

RECOGNIZING a persons right to own a firearm of reasonable strength

DEFINES firearm as portable, barreled weapon that uses an explosive to launch one or more projectiles

DEFINES reasonable strength as the amount of strength required to effectively disarm or subdue it's target

NOTING that this civil right is often intruded on

NOTING the fundamental human right to defend one's self

SEEKING to make it possible for citizens to protect themselves from those who wish to do them unprovoked harm

SEEKING to protect citizens from tyrannical governments who wish to cause undue harm to aforementioned citizens

MANDATES that all nations must allow their citizens, of whom are deemed able to do so, to own firearms

DEFINES 'able' as having the following conditions:

1) Free of any mental illness that would impede their ability to operate a firearm.
2) Having not been convicted in a free and fair court trial of a violent crime under their nation's law.
3) At or above the age of majority as defined by each individual nation.

DEFINES the term 'violent crime' as any crime that causes physical harm to or results in the death of another person or a crime done with the intent of meeting one or more of the aforementioned conditions.

DOES NOT require member nations to allow assault weapons, automatic weapons, or any weapons that fire an explosive suck as a grenade or missile

DEFINES 'assault weapon' as a selective fire (selective between semi-automatic, automatic and/or burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine

DEFINES 'automatic weapon' as a weapon that is capable of firing continuously while the trigger is pressed

RECOMMENDS that all nations have laws to encourage safe and responsible use of firearms

[Elke and Elba]

General Assembly
Gun Control
Relax Laws

RECOGNIZING a persons right to own a firearm of reasonable strength

DEFINES firearm as a barreled weapon that uses an explosive propellant to fire one or more projectiles at one time

DEFINES reasonable strength as the amount of strength required to effectively disarm or subdue it's target

NOTING that this civil right is often intruded on

NOTING the fundamental human right to defend one's self as noted in GA#183: viewtopic.php?p=8784370#p8784370

SEEKING to make it possible for citizens to protect themselves from those who wish to do them unprovoked harm

SEEKING to protect citizens from tyrannical governments who wish to cause undue harm to aforementioned citizens

MANDATES that all nations must allow their citizens, of whom are deemed able to do so, to own firearms

DEFINES 'able' as having the following conditions:

1) Free of any mental illness that would impede their ability to operate a firearm.
2) Having not been convicted of a violent crime under their nations law.
3) At or above the age of majority as defined by each individual nation.

DEFINES the term 'violent crime' as any crime that causes harm or results in the death to another person or has the intent of meeting one or more of the aforementioned conditions.

DOES NOT require member nations to allow assault weapons or automatic weapons

DEFINES 'assault weapon' as a selective fire (selective between semi-automatic, automatic and/or burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine

RECOMMENDS that all nations have laws to encourage safe and responsible use of firearms

Illegal due to House of Cards violation.

[Molsonian Republics]

General Assembly
Gun Control
Relax Laws

RECOGNIZING a persons right to own a firearm of reasonable strength

DEFINES firearm as a barreled weapon that uses an explosive propellant to fire one or more projectiles at one time

DEFINES reasonable strength as the amount of strength required to effectively disarm or subdue it's target

NOTING that this civil right is often intruded on

NOTING the fundamental human right to defend one's self as noted in GA#183: viewtopic.php?p=8784370#p8784370

SEEKING to make it possible for citizens to protect themselves from those who wish to do them unprovoked harm

SEEKING to protect citizens from tyrannical governments who wish to cause undue harm to aforementioned citizens

MANDATES that all nations must allow their citizens, of whom are deemed able to do so, to own firearms

DEFINES 'able' as having the following conditions:

1) Free of any mental illness that would impede their ability to operate a firearm.
2) Having not been convicted of a violent crime under their nations law.
3) At or above the age of majority as defined by each individual nation.

DEFINES the term 'violent crime' as any crime that causes harm or results in the death to another person or has the intent of meeting one or more of the aforementioned conditions.

DOES NOT require member nations to allow assault weapons or automatic weapons

DEFINES 'assault weapon' as a selective fire (selective between semi-automatic, automatic and/or burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine

RECOMMENDS that all nations have laws to encourage safe and responsible use of firearms

Illegal due to House of Cards violation.

Explain.

[Elke and Elba]

NOTING the fundamental human right to defend one's self as noted in GA#183: viewtopic.php?p=8784370#p8784370

This.

House of Cards

"RECALLING Resolutions #48, #80, #92, and #103..."

If those Resolutions are repealed, you've gutted the base of your own Resolution. A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existence; however, you may assign duties to an existing committee. Should the Resolution that creates the committee be Repealed, the committee will continue to exist, but in a reduced capacity. If your Proposal "builds on" an existing Resolution, you're amending that resolution. Excessive back referencing is not acceptable either. Create a new Proposal, don't just parrot existing ones. (see: Duplication)

Mentioned by Ard too in your previous reso draft. Did you read?

Here.

You wouldn’t be thinking of the ruling on Repeals, would you? If not, I’d appreciate a link to the ruling (though I know that’s asking a lot, especially if the comment was on Jolt). Thing is, context is important. It sounds logical, but it may have been intended to apply only to a particular draft. You’ll notice that the example in the Rules of what NOT to do is clearly a prefatory clause: "RECALLING Resolutions #48, #80, #92, and #103...". In general, I think a beginning author should avoid such nuances.

In this case, I’d advise the author to drop the wording “as noted in GA#183”. The phrase ties this proposal very closely to that Resolution. I can see two, possibly three, points people might choose to challenge on there – HoC, Honest Mistake and Duplication (reasonable force/reasonable strength) -- and, while the Hive Mind may not uphold any of them, it’d be a lot easier to just skip the drama. Plus, if one must, it’s always possible to imply in the text, “GA, you’ve said this before”, but save the specifics for the drafting thread.

[Dooom35796821595]

I believe your plagiarising from a coincidentally similar nation who happened to be delegated just before the creation of this nation.....coincidence?

[Molsonian Republics]

NOTING the fundamental human right to defend one's self as noted in GA#183: viewtopic.php?p=8784370#p8784370

This.

House of Cards

"RECALLING Resolutions #48, #80, #92, and #103..."

If those Resolutions are repealed, you've gutted the base of your own Resolution. A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existence; however, you may assign duties to an existing committee. Should the Resolution that creates the committee be Repealed, the committee will continue to exist, but in a reduced capacity. If your Proposal "builds on" an existing Resolution, you're amending that resolution. Excessive back referencing is not acceptable either. Create a new Proposal, don't just parrot existing ones. (see: Duplication)

The draft has been edited to that effect.

[Elke and Elba]

I believe your plagiarising from a coincidentally similar nation who happened to be delegated just before the creation of this nation.....coincidence?

He is the nation in question? He got DEAT for threadjacking twice in a week.

Anyway, Ambassador Norrland says NAY.

[Molsonian Republics]

I believe your plagiarising from a coincidentally similar nation who happened to be delegated just before the creation of this nation.....coincidence?

It's not plagiarism.

[Elke and Elba]

You wouldn’t be thinking of the ruling on Repeals, would you? If not, I’d appreciate a link to the ruling (though I know that’s asking a lot, especially if the comment was on Jolt). Thing is, context is important. It sounds logical, but it may have been intended to apply only to a particular draft. You’ll notice that the example in the Rules of what NOT to do is clearly a prefatory clause: "RECALLING Resolutions #48, #80, #92, and #103...". In general, I think a beginning author should avoid such nuances.

In this case, I’d advise the author to drop the wording “as noted in GA#183”. The phrase ties this proposal very closely to that Resolution. I can see two, possibly three, points people might choose to challenge on there – HoC, Honest Mistake and Duplication (reasonable force/reasonable strength) -- and, while the Hive Mind may not uphold any of them, it’d be a lot easier to just skip the drama. Plus, if one must, it’s always possible to imply in the text, “GA, you’ve said this before”, but save the specifics for the drafting thread.

I suggest the Molsonian delegate read this carefully, by the mod, and edit the draft as needed.

Honest Mistake and Duplication apparently still hold, given the fact you are using almost the same draft as your former nation. I'm not sure where since I haven't been following the thread carefully, you prolly want to ask Ard et al.

[Molsonian Republics]

You wouldn’t be thinking of the ruling on Repeals, would you? If not, I’d appreciate a link to the ruling (though I know that’s asking a lot, especially if the comment was on Jolt). Thing is, context is important. It sounds logical, but it may have been intended to apply only to a particular draft. You’ll notice that the example in the Rules of what NOT to do is clearly a prefatory clause: "RECALLING Resolutions #48, #80, #92, and #103...". In general, I think a beginning author should avoid such nuances.

In this case, I’d advise the author to drop the wording “as noted in GA#183”. The phrase ties this proposal very closely to that Resolution. I can see two, possibly three, points people might choose to challenge on there – HoC, Honest Mistake and Duplication (reasonable force/reasonable strength) -- and, while the Hive Mind may not uphold any of them, it’d be a lot easier to just skip the drama. Plus, if one must, it’s always possible to imply in the text, “GA, you’ve said this before”, but save the specifics for the drafting thread.

I suggest the Molsonian delegate read this carefully, by the mod, and edit the draft as needed.

Honest Mistake and Duplication apparently still hold, given the fact you are using almost the same draft as your former nation. I'm not sure where since I haven't been following the thread carefully, you prolly want to ask Ard et al.

Since this draft is written by the same person as the other one and the other draft was locked and therefore is irrelevant now, this is not plagiarism.

[Elke and Elba]

I suggest the Molsonian delegate read this carefully, by the mod, and edit the draft as needed.

Honest Mistake and Duplication apparently still hold, given the fact you are using almost the same draft as your former nation. I'm not sure where since I haven't been following the thread carefully, you prolly want to ask Ard et al.

Since this draft is written by the same person as the other one and the other draft was locked and therefore is irrelevant now, this is not plagiarism.

OOC:

I shall repeat my point.

The rule violations, BY THIS DRAFT (which is the same - hello, I know you two are the same person, d'oh), for Honest Mistake and Duplication still stands, as ruled by Ard.

What I'm trying to ASK you to do, is to find out WHY it has been deemed so, and RECTIFY the error in the draft. Don't ask me, because I'm very clueless what on earth, heaven, hell and back has been happening in the three threads (namely, the one which passed quorum, the one which caused you to DEAT, and this one, specifically).

[Molsonian Republics]

Since this draft is written by the same person as the other one and the other draft was locked and therefore is irrelevant now, this is not plagiarism.

OOC:

I shall repeat my point.

The rule violations, BY THIS DRAFT (which is the same - hello, I know you two are the same person, d'oh), for Honest Mistake and Duplication still stands, as ruled by Ard.

What I'm trying to ASK you to do, is to find out WHY it has been deemed so, and RECTIFY the error in the draft. Don't ask me, because I'm very clueless what on earth, heaven, hell and back has been happening in the three threads (namely, the one which passed quorum, the one which caused you to DEAT, and this one, specifically).

1. Who the h*** is Ard
2. What error?

[Ikania]

OOC:

I shall repeat my point.

The rule violations, BY THIS DRAFT (which is the same - hello, I know you two are the same person, d'oh), for Honest Mistake and Duplication still stands, as ruled by Ard.

What I'm trying to ASK you to do, is to find out WHY it has been deemed so, and RECTIFY the error in the draft. Don't ask me, because I'm very clueless what on earth, heaven, hell and back has been happening in the three threads (namely, the one which passed quorum, the one which caused you to DEAT, and this one, specifically).

1. Who the h*** is Ard
2. What error?

Ardchoille. You know, the guy you constantly ignored and continued threadjacking so you could get deleted.

Honestly, I don't see why you're still going at this. It got crushed last time, crushed the time before, and you're expecting it not to get crushed this time?

[Molsonian Republics]

1. Who the h*** is Ard
2. What error?

Ardchoille. You know, the guy you constantly ignored and continued threadjacking so you could get deleted.

Honestly, I don't see why you're still going at this. It got crushed last time, crushed the time before, and you're expecting it not to get crushed this time?

I'm trying to fix the problems so that it can pass, now either help me or leave.

[Elke and Elba]

Ardchoille. You know, the guy you constantly ignored and continued threadjacking so you could get deleted.

Honestly, I don't see why you're still going at this. It got crushed last time, crushed the time before, and you're expecting it not to get crushed this time?

I'm trying to fix the problems so that it can pass, now either help me or leave.

Erm, just trying to help you not DEAT again:

You may not be aware that there’s no thread ownership in the GA. That means the person who starts the thread does not have the right to say who can post in it. In forums where that’s the case, attempts to stop other posters having their say can be seen as provocation (flaming or trolling). The part not crossed out is all you need, and by itself would be a helpful reminder.
tl;dr: right idea, unsuccessful application.

Whatever the case, I agree with Ikania. The amount of resistance is so immense I don't think you could probably pass it unless you control the delegacies of the GCRs.

[Molsonian Republics]

I'm trying to fix the problems so that it can pass, now either help me or leave.

Erm, just trying to help you not DEAT again:

You may not be aware that there’s no thread ownership in the GA. That means the person who starts the thread does not have the right to say who can post in it. In forums where that’s the case, attempts to stop other posters having their say can be seen as provocation (flaming or trolling). The part not crossed out is all you need, and by itself would be a helpful reminder.
tl;dr: right idea, unsuccessful application.

Whatever the case, I agree with Ikania. The amount of resistance is so immense I don't think you could probably pass it unless you control the delegacies of the GCRs.

What's a GCR?

[Ikania]

I already suggested you leave, but you'd obviously like to glorify your violations and force your beliefs on us, so that's not happening anytime soon.

This is definitely a lot better written than the last one, I'll give you that. It's still a horrible train wreck that no one will vote for, but it's not like a resolution like this would ever be. Gun ownership ain't a civil right, kid. And anyone who tries to say it is is usually ignored. You have to declare in another resolution that it is someone's right to own a gun. This seems to be for the sole purpose of enacting said unwritten resolution by letting everyone who can raise their head own a gun. You could declare it a human right in this resolution, but it'll be crushed even more, because as we've stated countless times, we aren't born with guns in our hands, and we haven't had them for two thousand years. It certainly is not a human right. I propose giving up now, because even if you made a really good resolution, nobody would ever take it seriously since you wrote it. I must say, you've garnered quite the reputation in this Assembly. An infamous one, at that.

[Molsonian Republics]

I already suggested you leave, but you'd obviously like to glorify your violations and force your beliefs on us, so that's not happening anytime soon.

This is definitely a lot better written than the last one, I'll give you that. It's still a horrible train wreck that no one will vote for, but it's not like a resolution like this would ever be. Gun ownership ain't a civil right, kid. And anyone who tries to say it is is usually ignored. You have to declare in another resolution that it is someone's right to own a gun. This seems to be for the sole purpose of enacting said unwritten resolution by letting everyone who can raise their head own a gun. You could declare it a human right in this resolution, but it'll be crushed even more, because as we've stated countless times, we aren't born with guns in our hands, and we haven't had them for two thousand years. It certainly is not a human right. I propose giving up now, because even if you made a really good resolution, nobody would ever take it seriously since you wrote it. I must say, you've garnered quite the reputation in this Assembly. An infamous one, at that.

"... we aren't born with guns in our hands..."
Regarding this statement, people aren't born with a certain religion, people aren't born with a sexuality (don't argue with me on this statement here, TG me instead), and people aren't born with the want for an abortion. Now back to the draft, how should I define assault rifle? I'll list whoever gives me the definition I use as a co-author.

[Wheeled States of Bifid]

Ok, I'll try something here. Molsonian Republics, if you can answer this question in a straight forward manner without talking about, liberals, abortions, Muslims, and so on, then you might have a snowball's chance below:

Why should being able to keep arms be an internationally recognized right?

[Ikania]

I already suggested you leave, but you'd obviously like to glorify your violations and force your beliefs on us, so that's not happening anytime soon.

This is definitely a lot better written than the last one, I'll give you that. It's still a horrible train wreck that no one will vote for, but it's not like a resolution like this would ever be. Gun ownership ain't a civil right, kid. And anyone who tries to say it is is usually ignored. You have to declare in another resolution that it is someone's right to own a gun. This seems to be for the sole purpose of enacting said unwritten resolution by letting everyone who can raise their head own a gun. You could declare it a human right in this resolution, but it'll be crushed even more, because as we've stated countless times, we aren't born with guns in our hands, and we haven't had them for two thousand years. It certainly is not a human right. I propose giving up now, because even if you made a really good resolution, nobody would ever take it seriously since you wrote it. I must say, you've garnered quite the reputation in this Assembly. An infamous one, at that.

"... we aren't born with guns in our hands..."
Regarding this statement, people aren't born with a certain religion, people aren't born with a sexuality (don't argue with me on this statement here, TG me instead), and people aren't born with the want for an abortion. Now back to the draft, how should I define assault rifle? I'll list whoever gives me the definition I use as a co-author.

People are raised with a certain religion. But most religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.) advocate peace and nonviolence, unlike guns. People have the right to think, not the right to kill. As for abortion, well, that's just kind of common sense. There's this thing in my belly that I don't want, and it's not alive yet. Get it out of my belly.

[Separatist Peoples]

This fails to address, yet again, the disparity in the belief that people don't have the right to property, as recognized by the WA, except in this particular case.

The last argument I heard was a poor argument involving a holy book being taken from people entering a nation and destroyed. I'll comment on that, since I didn't get the chance to either.

A nation is welcome to confiscate goods that would be illegal within their nation. They do not have to offer compensation. As a result, on the surface, it would seem that burning religious books entering the nation would be legal. However, one cannot just burn those of one religion, as that would be discrimination. Much like the Freedom of Marriage Act, you have to treat everybody equally, or get rid of the process entirely. At least, you do if you want to be in compliance.

The long and short of this is that there is no evidence to support there being a right to own property here, so I find it farcical to see that it is being argued here for one small class of property. I also don't see how this is an issue of international importance.

Of course, if the draft simply stated that firearms have to be made available, with no reference to ownership of possession, then this conundrum would be circumvented entirely.

[West Angola]

As has been stated multiple times, there is no recognized right to firearm ownership in the WA, and that is one of the main reasons this proposal will not pass.

[Kryozerkia]

I'm trying to fix the problems so that it can pass, now either help me or leave.

There is no thread ownership in the World Assembly forums.

[Stalliongrad and Far-Eastern Territories]

I've been keeping an eye on this circus, and I think it's high time the Molsonan government recognize that it is the clown. As I have previously stated, this stands no chance whatsoever. Your time would be better spent doing literally anything else.

In addition, the nation you represent doesn't seem to be a member of the WA. What exactly are you doing here?

[Bananaistan]

The Republic of Bananaistan remains strongly opposed to this resolution for the reasons already submitted during the most recent debate on this topic.